Mathematical Analysis of Autonomous and Nonautonomous Hepatitis B Virus Transmission Models

It is clear that this function f(u(t)) in equation ? is continuous, and its derivatives with respect to x, y, and z are also continuous. Therefore, the system (?) has a unique local solution.

It is well known that solutions of ordinary differential equations may blow up in finite time.

Notice that z(t) has an explicit solution that depends on y(t). Thus, if y(t) is positive, that implies z(t) is also positive for all t\geq t_0.

Then, it is enough to show the positiveness for x and y. By contradiction suppose not, then there exists \tau \in [t_0,t_0+T_{max}) such that x(t)>0 , y(t)>0 and z(t)>0 on [t_0,\tau) this implies one of the following cases

x(\tau)=0 \,\,\, \text{and} \,\,\, y(\tau)>0 x(\tau)>0 \,\,\, \text{and}\,\,\, y(\tau)=0 x(\tau)=0 \,\,\, \text{and} \,\,\, y(\tau)=0

Claim Case (ii) is not possible.

Similarly, case(iii) is also not possible.

Therefore, the statement in the lemma is correct.

From the basic definition of the derivative, we have.

from the first equation in ? we have

That is a contradiction. Therefore, case(1) is not possible.

We know that

from the second equation in ? we have

from (3) and (4) we have a contradiction, thus, case(2) is not possible.

It is enough to show that |x(t)|+|y(t)| < \infty on (t_0\, ,\, t_0+T_{max}).
By adding the first two equations in ? we get

Let v(t)=x(t)+y(t) the equation Proof becomes

By the ODE comparison principle, we have

then 0.1 implies that T_{max} = +\infty.

It is clear that for t large, we have

Which means both x(t) and y(t) are bounded. It is clear that z(t) is also bounded directly by solving the third equation in system ?.

In fact, it is enough to show that

Since x-\bar{x}, y-\bar{y}, and z-\bar{z} satisfies the system ?. From system ? we have

Now, let X=x-\bar{x}, Y=y-\bar{y} and Z=z-\bar{z} then system Proof becomes

Now, since X=X_+ - X_-, where X_+ and X_- are the positive and negative parts of the function X, and also we have

This implies that

Now multiplying equation ? by X_+ gives

If we multiply equation ? by X_- we get

adding equation ? and equation ? we get

Thus,

Similarly, by using the same computational technique, we got

and

Now, by adding ? , ? and ? we get

Therefore,

where

Condition ? guaranteed that \nu_1, \nu_2, an \nu_3 are always positive. Since W\geq 0, then the inequity ? still holds after removing W.

Now Let k= \text{min}n \left\lbrace \nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3 \right\rbrace and let V(t)=|X(t)|^2 +|Y(t)|^2 + |Z(t)|^2 then the inequality ? becomes

Consider the Lyapunov function

which is clearly positive, and by following some computations in the proof of Lemma 2 we get V'\leq 0. That completed the proof.

The proof follows by Lemm 2.

The proof is similar to the positiveness of the autonomous case that was introduced earlier. Set \Vert X(t) \Vert_1 = x(t)+y(t)+z(t), if we combine the three equations in (? - ?) we get:

\dot{x}(t)+\dot{y}(t)+\dot{z}(t)= \Lambda(t) -\mu_1 x -(\mu_2 -(1-\epsilon)p ) y - \mu_3 z

assume \mu_2 > (1-\epsilon)p and let \alpha= min{\mu_1 , \mu_2 - (1-\epsilon)p, \mu_3}, then we get

\frac{d}{dt}\Vert X(t) \Vert_1 \leq \Lambda_M -\alpha \Vert X(t) \Vert_1

this implies that

\Vert X(t) \Vert_1 \leq max \lbrace x_0+y_0+z_0 , \frac{\Lambda_M}{\alpha} \rbrace

Thus, the set B_\epsilon= \lbrace (x,y,z) \in \mathbb{R}_+^3 : \epsilon \leq x(t)+y(t)+z(t) \leq \frac{\Lambda_M}{\alpha} + \epsilon \rbrace is positively invariant and absorbing in \mathbb{R}_+^3.

Let

and are two solutions of the system (? - ? ) by similar computational in autonomous case we get

Now, let X=x_1 - x_2, Y=y_1 - y_2 and Z=z_1-z_2 then system Proof becomes

This implies that

Similarly, by using the same computational technique, we got

and

Now, by adding ? , ? and ? we get

Since x_2 and z_1 are bounded, assume that \gamma_2= max \lbrace x_2 \rbrace and \gamma_1 = max \lbrace z_1 \rbrace.
Therefore,

where

Let \alpha= min\lbrace \nu_1,\nu_2\nu_3\rbrace, then equation ? becomes

Which has a solution

Notice that, for \nu_1, \nu_2, \nu_3 to following positive conditions must hold.

The proof follows the previous proofs.